• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the 2001/2003 GWB cuts be extended?

Should the 2001/2003 GWB tax cuts be extended for people that make under $250k?

  • Total voters
    55
TurtleDude said:
can you find a ruling where the "general welfare clause" was found to be an empowering clause? do you understand the concept?
Click to expand...

If you do not find it to be an empowering clause take it up with the courts.

Or do you not believe in the rule of law?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
If you do not find it to be an empowering clause take it up with the courts.

Or do you not believe in the rule of law?
Click to expand...

you already made that silly point before and it clearly shows you are clueless about constitutional jurisprudence

educate us as to what university awarded you a degree in law.:mrgreen:

do you even know what an empowering clause is or what the tenth amendment says?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
You say that like its a bad thang! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

its dishonest to claim to be a conservative when you are clearly a statist
 
Voted Yes. Because they are an important tool in improving the economy and unemployment in a hastier manner than can the current proposals of the Administration.
 
TurtleDude said:
you already made that silly point before and it clearly shows you are clueless about constitutional jurisprudence

educate us as to what university awarded you a degree in law.:mrgreen:

do you even know what an empowering clause is or what the tenth amendment says?
Click to expand...

I've not heard of the term empowering clause, but I would reason that its meaning is similar to an enabling clause that means a provision in a new law that legally enables its creation.

The tenth amendment, often cited by the Tenthers, that powers not granted to the federal government under the Constitution are held by the states.

Now, that I have answered your questions, would you answer my question that you have avoided twice now ~

Do you believe in the rule of law? Do you know what it means?
 
Catawba said:
I've not heard of the term empowering clause, but I would reason that its meaning is similar to an enabling clause that means a provision in a new law that legally enables its creation.

The tenth amendment, often cited by the Tenthers, that powers not granted to the federal government under the Constitution are held by the states.

Now, that I have answered your questions, would you answer my question that you have avoided twice now ~

Do you believe in the rule of law? Do you know what it means?
Click to expand...

of course I do and as a free man I have a right to discuss rapes of the law by congress.

Why do you claim to be a conservative? That is intellectually dishonest
 
TurtleDude said:
of course I do and as a free man I have a right to discuss rapes of the law by congress.
Click to expand...

Thanks, there for a while, I thought you were implying there was something illegal going on.

Why do you claim to be a conservative? That is intellectually dishonest[/QUOTE]

It is perfectly honest. I am a conservative by the definition of the root term:

to keep in a safe or sound state <he conserved his inheritance>; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of <conserve natural resources>
Conserve - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
Catawba said:
Thanks, there for a while, I thought you were implying there was something illegal going on.

Why do you claim to be a conservative? That is intellectually dishonest
Click to expand...

It is perfectly honest. I am a conservative by the definition of the root term:

to keep in a safe or sound state <he conserved his inheritance>; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of <conserve natural resources>
Conserve - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary[/QUOTE]

Well I am a liberal as envisioned by Locke, Rousseau and the Founders. I believe in liberty and progress is a move towards less government, less dependency, and less parasites
 
TurtleDude said:
Well I am a liberal as envisioned by Locke, Rousseau and the Founders. I believe in liberty and progress is a move towards less government, less dependency, and less parasites
Click to expand...

Good for you!
 
TurtleDude said:
of course I do and as a free man I have a right to discuss rapes of the law by congress.

Why do you claim to be a conservative? That is intellectually dishonest
Click to expand...



Thank you, I could not agree more.........:applaud
 
TurtleDude said:
It is perfectly honest. I am a conservative by the definition of the root term:

to keep in a safe or sound state <he conserved his inheritance>; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of <conserve natural resources>
Conserve - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Well I am a liberal as envisioned by Locke, Rousseau and the Founders. I believe in liberty and progress is a move towards less government, less dependency, and less parasites
Click to expand...
That's funnny.

I'm Centrist but I'm FOR a Balanced Budget which USED to be a conservative Idea (and still professes to be).
So now I'm for the Concorde Coalition (bi-partisan/Google).

Of course, we could/can NEVER cut spending Enough to have a balanced budget any more because of all the non-discretionary spending within.

So saying you're 'for' extending the Bush tax cuts means you are 'For' Deficit spending.
It didn't work for Bush even with a Fake Hyped Housing and Stock Market.
It didn't work for Bogus Reagan-onomics either
It Doesn't work.

The last time we had Balanced Budgets was with somewhat higher Taxes under CLINTON.
-
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Thanks-thus in your case conservative would be anti freedom, pro dependency, pro parasite:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I guess some people see conserving our natural resources for future generations that way.
 
Catawba said:
I guess some people see conserving our natural resources for future generations that way.
Click to expand...

In your case that seems to be an excuse to monopolize and concentrate all wealth into the hands of the government.

where do you get the idea that tax hikes will actually increase tax revenues?
 
TurtleDude said:
where do you get the idea that tax hikes will actually increase tax revenues?
Click to expand...

Just about any fair-minded observation of history and economics would reach this conclusion. And the nonpartisan CBO also agrees, with a few caveats.

This something-for-nothing mentality, that you can cut taxes AND have higher revenue, may be true under rare exceptions (such as unusually high tax rates)...but in general it has caused high deficits for 30 years.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Just about any fair-minded observation of history and economics would reach this conclusion. And the nonpartisan CBO also agrees, with a few caveats.
Click to expand...

really? so given our current economy where many economists (I mean the real ones, not those in ivory towers but those who actually aren't living off of government grants) claim the expiration of the Bush tax normalization after the clinton hikes will cause a double dip recession?
 
Kandahar said:
Just about any fair-minded observation of history and economics would reach this conclusion. And the nonpartisan CBO also agrees, with a few caveats.

This something-for-nothing mentality, that you can cut taxes AND have higher revenue, may be true under rare exceptions (such as unusually high tax rates)...but in general it has caused high deficits for 30 years.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts never cause deficits. Spending causes deficits
 
TurtleDude said:
really? so given our current economy where many economists (I mean the real ones, not those in ivory towers but those who actually aren't living off of government grants) claim the expiration of the Bush tax normalization after the clinton hikes will cause a double dip recession?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that tax cuts have no economic benefit. I said they don't create enough economic benefit to pay for themselves. If you want lower taxes to benefit the economy, that's perfectly defensible. But it's intellectually dishonest to claim that we can have our cake and eat it too. Tax cuts most certainly result in lower revenue.

National-Debt-GDP.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom